this kind of stuff in the Press of the Communists of the Left, I cannot help wondering what has made these people forsake reality for formulas. Reality says that State Capitalism would be a step forward for us; if we were able to bring about in Russia in a short time State Capitalism it would be a victory for us. How could they be so blind as not to see that our enemy is the small capitalist, the small owner? How could they see the chief enemy in State Capitalism? In the transition period from Capitalism to Socialism our chief enemy is the small bourgeoisie, with its economic customs, habits, and position. The small owner, more than anyone else, is afraid of State Capitalism, for his one idea is to grab for himself as much as possible, to ruin, to exterminate, the big owners and exploiters. That is why the small owner readily supports us so far. On this point he is more revolutionary than the workers, because he is more vindictive. Therefore he willingly co-operates in the fight against the upper classes—not as a Socialist, in order to build up after the defeat of the big owner a Socialist Commonwealth, on the basis of firm proletarian discipline, organisation, and control; but in order to reap the fruits of the victory in his own interest, and regardless of the common interests of the toilers as a whole.
What is State Capitalism in the hands of the Soviet Power? To bring about State Capitalism at the present time means to establish that control and order formerly achieved by the propertied classes. We have in Germany an example of State Capitalism, and we know that she proved our superior. If you would only give a little thought to what the security of such State Socialism would mean in Russia, a Soviet Russia, you would recognise that only madmen whose heads are full of formulas and doctrines can deny that State Socialism is our salvation. If we possessed it in Russia the transition to complete Socialism would be easy, because State Socialism is centralisation, control, socialisation—in fact, everything that we lack. The greatest menace to us is the opportunism of the small bourgeoisie, which, owing to the history and the economics of Russia, is the best organised class, and which prevents us from taking this step, on which depends the success of Socialism.
I wish to remind you that I wrote about State Socialism a few days before the upheaval, when a Revolutionary-Democratic Government of Kerenski, Tchernoff, Tseretelli, Kiskin, and others of that ilk was contemplated: a Government which rested, and could only rest, on a bourgeois basis. I said then that State Capitalism is a step towards State Socialism; I wrote that on October 20th, 1917, and again in April, 1918, after the proletariat had assumed power in October. Many factories and workshops are confiscated, financial concerns and banks are nationalised, the resistance of the militant bourgeoisie and of those indulging in sabotage is broken. And now, after all this, to frighten us with capitalism! This is such a ludicrous and preposterous absurdity and invention that one cannot help wondering how it was possible to conceive it! They have left out of consideration a mere trifle, namely, that in Russia we have a numerous small bourgeoisie which is in favour of the extermination of the upper bourgeoisie in all countries, but is not.in favour of socialisation and control at home; and in this consists the great danger for the Revolution. The small bourgeoisie permeates the social atmosphere with mean "possessive" tendencies and aims, which can be summed up in the phrase: "Well, I have taken from the wealthy, and the others are no concern of mine." It is precisely this attitude which constitutes the great danger. The domination of the small bourgeoisie by the other class:s and by State Capitalism should be welcomed by every class-conscious worker, because State Capitalism under Kerenski's democratic régime would mean a step towards Socialism, and under the Soviet Government almost complete socialism.
My statement that in order to properly understand one's task one should learn Socialism from the promoters of Trusts aroused the indignation of the Communists of the Left. Yes, we do not want to teach the Trusts; on the contrary, we want to learn from them. But the economists of the Left want to teach the Trusts. What is it you want to teach them? Perhaps it is Socialism. Do you mean to say that you are going to inculcate Socialism into merchants and business men? Well, if you feel inclined to undertake that job, do so, by all means; but we are not going to join you in this impossible
11
